I wrote that first "Bush Dog" post not really expecting it to go as far as it did and unfortunately I've had too much on my plate to take part in the discussion that's been sparked because of it. Now I've got a few minutes and more importantly I still believe that I'm right.
As Open Left continues their "Bush Dog" charade my earlier concerns are growing. It's gotten to the point that I now approach everything that they say with the same degree of skepticism I would if it had came from the Bush Administration. Worse, this fighting amongst ourselves has distracted us to the point where we've forgotten that the members of the Bush Administration, not moderate Democrats, are the source of these problems. On this note I'd like to issue a challenge to the administrators and users of Open Left, but first I'd like to quickly run through some of my concerns.
Despite what you think Open Left members, the burden of this falls on you. You're going up against people that were voted in by their constituents and yet the assumption on your part has been that it's those constituents that must play defense on this. This logic is fundamentally flawed. You're the prosecution, the burden of proof falls on you. Before you created a list of Reps. that you labeled "Bush Dogs" it was on your hands to make sure the research was done. Instead you've published your conclusions and demanded that people prove you wrong.
Both Space and Wilson have changed their positions on Iraq since the vote you've cited, even basic research would have told you that much. As for FISA I know Wilson is eager to reconsider it when the act expires. But instead of approaching this rationally and finding out just where things stand you've opted to be impulsive and reckless, perhaps enough so that you've done more damage to your cause than good.
You've also thrown around poll numbers like they are irrefutable proof that your in the right. If these poll numbers are as accurate as you seem to claim they are then why do we even have elections? Why don't we just poll 10% of the people in an area and save ourselves some cash?
And last but not least, you've mislead people. I've heard several times that this is just research and that you aren't planning on trying to find primary challenges to these people. Yet the most recent Bush Dog post (promoted by Chris Bowers" contains the following:
One obvious conclusion from all the above is that generically the best prospects for running primary challenges, if it comes to that, are against the 6 newbies Bush Dogs in safe districts: Wilson (OH-06), Salazar (CO-03), Cuellar (TX-28), Costa (CA-20), Boren (OK-02), Lipinski (IL-03).
These six are the safest seats from a partisan perspective, but the least entrenched officeholders, from a primary potential perspective.
Not planning on primary challenges? For some reason I'm not convinced.
Now the challenge itself:
Are you all prepared to try to continue this campaign in it's current form? Are you willing to stake your reputations on the fact that your campaign is both justified and the right path to your goal?
Consider it thoroughly because this could be your last chance for second thoughts before your plan goes too far to turn back. Are you prepared for the consequences that may result from it? I'm not asking you to sit around and pretend your happy about the votes of the Representatives, I'm just asking you to consider other options first.
In any case I'm done with this waste of time.